Cited by

(stating that “[t]he right of confrontation is fundamental under both the federal and state constitutions”), –97 (Minn. 2005).

The district court “must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction” and may not “weigh the evidence or discredit witnesses and thereby deny an instruction.” Johnson, d at 626 (quotation omitted)

Accordingly, a defendant “is entitled to appropriate instructions advising the jury of its power to return a verdict of guilty of the lesser offense,” so long as “the evidence adduced at trial would permit a finding of guilty of an included crime.”

“[Appellate courts] review the denial of a requested lesser- included offense instruction under an abuse of discretion standard.”

Appellate courts “defer to the district court’s credibility determination and disregard any testimony conflicting with the verdict[.]” (“We emphasize that both credibility determinations and the weighing of evidence are tasks reserved to the [fact-finder].”).

(reversing and remanding for a new trial when a jury was essentially forced “to choose between convicting [the defendant] of premeditated murder and acquitting him of a crime for which the evidence clearly suggested he was responsible-at least to some degree” (emphasis added)); Johnson

The denial of a lesser-included offense instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but when a lesser-included offense instruction is warranted by the evidence, “the trial court must give it.”

We review a challenge to jury instructions for abuse of discretion and “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.” 597 (Minn. 2005).

at 631 (quotation omitted); (“In evaluating whether a rational basis exists in the evidence for a jury instruction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.”); (emphasizing that “both credibility determinations and the weighing of evidence are tasks reserved to the jury”).

Once again, this record does not justify a departure from the well-established rule that “the weighing of evidence” is a task “reserved to the jury.” State v. Dahlin

See, d 588, 598 (Minn. 2005).

“[W]hen a defendant fails to request a lesser-included offense instruction warranted by the evidence, the defendant impliedly waives his or her right to receive the instruction.” -98 (Minn. 2005).

“[W]hen a defendant fails to request a lesser-included offense instruction warranted by the evidence, the defendant impliedly waives his or her right to receive the instruction.” -9 8 (Minn. 2005).

d 588, 597 (Minn. 2005).

(consideri ng only instructions actually given and verdict rendered to determine prejudice from denial of requested instruction), with Gates, d at 563 (considering totality of ev idence presented to jury to determine prejudice from allegedly ineffective represen tation).

Id.; (holding that district courts must give a lesser-included-offense instruction when the lesser offense is included in the charged offense and the evidence provides a rational basis both for acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and for convicting the defendant of the lesser-included offe

I. When a party requests a jury instruction, “trial courts must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the pa rty requesting the instruction.” State v. Dahlin

“[W]hen a defendant fails to request a lesser -included offense instruction warranted by the evidence, the defendant impliedly waives his or her right to receive the instruction.” -98 (Minn. 2005).

A district court must give a lesser-included-offense instruction when “(1) the lesser offense is included in the charged offense; (2) the evidence provides a rational basis for acquitting the defendant of the offense charged; and (3) the evidence provides a rational basis for convicting the defendant of the lesser-included offense.”

(“In determining whether a lesser-included offense instruction should be given, trial courts must consider only whether a rational basis ex ists in the evidence to acquit of the greater charge and convict of the lesse r-without considering the stre ngth of the evidence or the credibility of the

Waivers can be explicit or implied from other conduct; for example, defendants implicitly waive their Miranda rights by “answering questions without hesitation or volunteering information in the absence of questioning.” State v. Merrill , abrogated on other grounds by State v. Dahlin , ; see also Fox, d at 23 214 (concludi ng that the defendant implicitly waived his Miranda rights based on the totality of the circumstances).

Unlike most cases where “intent and premeditation are not easily susceptible to direct proof,” the surveillance video of the parking lot shows a shooter lying in wait for Hoskins.

It is “the trial court’s duty to instruct when necessary” and to determine “whether a lesser-included offense in struction should be given.” State v. Dahlin

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to a ppellant, who requested the instruction, see State v. Dahlin , (Mi nn.

State v. Dahlin , , 598 (Minn. 2005).

“[A] defendant ‘may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.04, subd.

Wh en determining whether to provide a lesser- included-offense instruction, district courts “must determine whether 1) the lesser offense is included in the charged offense; 2) the ev idence provides a rational basis for acquitting the defendant of the offense charged; and 3) the evidence provides a rational basis for convicting the defendant of the lesser-included offense.”

In fact, we have explicitly held that theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery, -78 (Minn. 2005), meaning that theft is a “lesser degree of the same crime," (emphasis added) (citing Mjnn.

hen a defendant requests an instruction on a lesser-included offense, a district court must give the instruction if “1) the lesser offense is included in the charged offense; 2) the evidence provides a rational basis for acquitting the defendant of the charged offense; and 3) the evidence provides a rational basis for convicting the defendant of the lesser-included offense.”

-18 (Minn. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by , State v. Dahlin , -96 (Minn. 2005).

A jury instruction on a lesser-included offense is warranted if “1) the lesser offense is included in the offense charged; 2) the evidence provides a rational basis for acquitting the defendant of the charged offense; and 3) the evidence provides a rational basis for convicting the defendant of the lesser-included offense.”

In determining whether evidence exists to support a defense-of-dwelling jury instruction, the district court must “review the record in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.”